Knowing and/or experiencing: a critical examination of the reflective models of John Dewey and Donald Schön
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I take issue with the overuse of reflective practice in teacher education, arguing that the term ‘reflection’ is often utilized without a comprehensive understanding of its quite diverse parentage. In efforts to clarify the term, I trace the ideological lineage of reflective practice in education, detailing the rationalist-technicist model offered in the work of John Dewey and the experiential-intuitive model as it appears in the work of Donald Schön, highlighting the key differences in their respective approaches to reflection through critique. I demonstrate that both models bifurcate knowledge and experience, privileging the former at the expense of the latter. I conclude with a brief exploration of Van Manen’s tacit knowing and its potential for reflective practice in teacher education. Ultimately, this work cautions against an uncritical adoption of reflective models, stressing that in doing so, the very spirit of reflective practice can be undermined.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it